Dark Money and The Roberts Supreme Court’s Interpretation of The Second Amendment
Deets On The Second Amendment
Dark Money and The Roberts Supreme Court’s Interpretation of The Second Amendment
Supreme Court Rulings In The Aftermath of Citizens United
The intersection of money, politics, and constitutional rights has long been a contentious issue in American democracy. Two significant players in this arena are the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and the National Rifle Association (NRA). These entities have profoundly impacted Supreme Court decisions related to gun control, shaping the legal landscape and influencing policy outcomes. In this chapter, we will explore the ramifications of Citizens United and the NRA’s influence on the federal judiciary, particularly regarding Second Amendment rights.
Citizens United: A Watershed Moment
The Ruling
In 2010, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The case centered on a conservative nonprofit group, Citizens United, which challenged campaign finance rules. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) had prevented Citizens United from promoting and airing a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the primaries. The Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, asserting that corporations and other outside groups have a First Amendment right to free speech and can spend unlimited money on elections.
Super PACs Emerge
The most significant outcome of Citizens United was the creation of Super PACs—independent expenditure-only committees. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs cannot directly contribute to politicians or political parties. However, they can independently spend unlimited funds to either support or oppose political candidates. The NRA recognized the potential of Super PACs and strategically directed efforts toward shaping the federal judiciary under President Donald Trump.
The NRA’s Influence on Judicial Nominations
Kavanaugh and Beyond
The NRA campaigned vigorously in support of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose confirmation shifted the Court’s balance in favor of gun rights. Kavanaugh’s appointment was pivotal, as he replaced the more moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy. The NRA-backed case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen led to an expansive ruling in June 2022. This ruling favored the NRA, potentially allowing millions more Americans to carry guns and striking down various state and local firearms restrictions.
Blocking Gun-Safety Reforms
The NRA’s influence extends beyond judicial nominations. It has been potent in blocking popular gun-safety reforms. Despite public support, congressional proposals like extending background checks to all gun sales were thwarted by the NRA. The organization’s ability to frame gun rights as a constitutional issue has been a powerful rhetorical tool in opposing reforms.
The Shift in Second Amendment Interpretation
Before the Heller and McDonald decisions, the Court had consistently ruled against an individual’s right to own a gun. However, these landmark rulings affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual constitutional freedom. The NRA’s advocacy contributed to this shift, rewriting the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Gun Control and The Roberts Court
The Roberts Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has significantly impacted the landscape of gun control in the United States. Through its decisions, the Court has shaped the interpretation of the Second Amendment and influenced the implementation of sensible gun control measures. In this section, we will explore how the Roberts Court’s rulings have undermined efforts to promote public safety while respecting individual rights.
The 2008 Ruling: District of Columbia v. Heller
The Roberts Court’s pivotal moment in gun control jurisprudence came with the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, the Court addressed the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s strict handgun ban. The Court’s majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home. This ruling invalidated key parts of D.C.'s handgun ban, which had prohibited the possession of nearly all handguns in the city.
The Originalism Debate
The Court justified its decision using the principle of “originalism”, which looks to the text of the Constitution as it was understood by the amendment’s drafters and their contemporaries. However, the Court’s application of originalism in Heller was controversial. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The majority opinion made the initial clause about the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” disappear, treating it as merely “prefatory” and having no real operative effect.
The NRA’s Influence
The National Rifle Association (NRA) played a significant role in shaping the Court’s approach to gun rights. The NRA had been waging a 30-year campaign to secure an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Its mission was to win over members of the public, high-level politicians, and ultimately, the Supreme Court. With Heller, the NRA achieved its goal—an individual right to possess a firearm, at least for self-defense in the home.
Chicago and the Extension of the Second Amendment
In 2010, the Roberts Court extended the new Second Amendment right to states and cities in McDonald v. Chicago. This decision struck down Chicago’s similarly strict handgun ban. Chief Justice Roberts and the conservative justices continued to interpret the Second Amendment expansively, emphasizing individual rights over collective interests.
Limiting Regulation
The Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald have set limits on the extent to which governments can regulate firearms. While these rulings affirmed an individual's right to bear arms, they also recognized that certain restrictions on gun ownership and possession are permissible under the law. The Court has held that while the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, it is not unlimited, and governments may enact reasonable regulations to promote public safety and prevent gun violence.
Impact on State and Local Laws
The rulings in Heller and McDonald had a significant impact on state and local gun control laws by incorporating the Second Amendment's protections against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. As a result, the Court's decisions have influenced the legal framework for gun control across the country, requiring states and localities to comply with constitutional standards when enacting firearms regulations.
Future Challenges
While the Roberts Court's decisions have shaped the landscape of gun control in significant ways, the Court's composition and future rulings could further impact the balance between gun rights and gun control. Future challenges to gun control laws may come before the Court, providing opportunities for the justices to clarify and potentially expand or restrict the scope of Second Amendment protections.
The Irony of Outcome-Oriented Judicial Activism
The Roberts Court’s approach to gun control has been criticized as outcome-oriented judicial activism. The same conservative justices who claim to adhere to originalism engaged in a brand of “living constitutionalism” when it came to the Second Amendment. They selectively ignored historical context and settled legal consensus to achieve their desired outcome. Justice Richard Posner, a Reagan-appointed federal appellate judge, derided Scalia’s approach as “faux originalism” and a “snow job.”
Delicate Balance
The confluence of Citizens United, the NRA’s lobbying efforts, and favorable court decisions has significantly impacted gun control laws and individual freedoms. As the nation grapples with the delicate balance between public safety and constitutional rights, the legacy of these entities will continue to shape the legal landscape for generations to come.
The Roberts Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald have significantly weakened sensible gun control measures. By emphasizing individual rights over public safety, the Court has made the country less safe and less free. As the debate over gun control continues, the legacy of the Roberts Court will continue to shape the balance between constitutional freedoms and the need for responsible regulation.
The judges appointed during this era will shape legal decisions for decades. Their influence extends far beyond the current Congress or any specific administration. The rush to fill court vacancies may have long-lasting consequences, impacting gun policy, constitutional interpretation, and individual rights.
In the end, the question remains: How much influence should money and interest groups wield over our democracy, especially when it comes to matters as fundamental as the right to bear arms?